Epiaortic Scanning Modifies Planned Intraoperative Surgical Management But Not Cerebral Embolic Load During Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with aortic atheroma are at increased risk for neurological injury after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. We sought to determine the role of epiaortic ultrasound scanning for reducing cerebral embolic load, and whether its use leads to changes of planned intraoperative surgical management in patients undergoing CABG surgery. METHODS: Patients >70-yr-of-age scheduled for CABG surgery were prospectively randomized to either an epiaortic scanning (EAS) group (aortic manipulation guided by epiaortic ultrasound) or a control group (manual aortic palpation without EAS). All patients received a comprehensive transesophageal echocardiographic examination. Transcranial Doppler (TCD) was used to monitor the middle cerebral arteries for emboli continuously from 2 min before aortic cannulation to 2 min after aortic decannulation. Neurological assessment was performed with the National Institute of Health stroke scale before surgery and at hospital discharge. The NEECHAM confusion scale was used for assessment and monitoring of patient global cognitive function on each day after surgery until hospital discharge. RESULTS: Intraoperative surgical management was changed in 16 of 55 (29%) patients in the EAS group and in 7 of 58 (12%) patients in the control group (P = 0.025). These changes included adjustments of the ascending aorta cannulation site for cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), the avoidance of aortic cross-clamping by using ventricular fibrillatory arrest during surgery, or by conversion to off-pump surgery. During surgery, 7 of 58 (12%) patients in the control group crossed over to the EAS group based on the results of manual aortic palpation. The median [range] TCD detected cerebral embolic count did not differ between the EAS and control groups during aortic manipulations (EAS, 11.5 [1-516] vs control, 22.0 [1-160], P = 0.91) or during CPB (EAS, 42.0 [4-516] vs control, 63.0 [5-758], P = 0.46). The NEECHAM confusion scores and National Institute of Health stroke scale scores were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that the use of EAS led to modifications in intraoperative surgical management in almost one-third of patients undergoing CABG surgery. The use of EAS did not lead to a reduced number of TCD-detected cerebral emboli before or during CPB.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".